6 ms·
If it were obviously falsified by evidence a random fact that reasonably well-educated but non-specialist knows off the top of their head, it wouldn’t be a con
by compiler-guy 5y ago
If it were obviously falsified by evidence a random fact that reasonably well-educated but non-specialist knows off the top of their head, it wouldn’t be a controversy and hardly of note.
Scholars have written scores of papers and spilled gallons of ink on both sides of the topic. What do you know that they don’t?
I think the theory is wrong, or at least incomplete, but the evidence against isn’t as clear as all that.
- ummonk 5y agoThat’s not necessarily true. Often, a lack of interdisciplinary engagement can result in easily in theories or debates lasting far longer than they should. In this case, the debate seems to have been confined to medievalists not military historians, and going by the way Wikipedia article it appears that once experimental archeologists weighed in, they were rather critical of the theory. For a similar example from another field, observe the decades long contention in epidemiology about droplet sizes and viruses like the flu and Covid not being airborne, in contradiction to basic aerosol physics.
- compiler-guy 5y agoNot necessarily, sure. But the odds that you just happen to know some fact that "obviously falsifies" a decades old scientific controversy are very close to zero. In fact, if you are right, you should write up a paper. There are numerous journals that would be thrilled to resolve this controversy once and for all.
- ummonk 5y agoGiven that there are only six citations in the Wikipedia article, I don’t think the debate is nearly as noteworthy as you think it is.
- compiler-guy 5y agoThe paper you write which puts it all to bed with the obvious refutation that somehow all those sources missed could be the seventh.